]]>As the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee met last week to look at the impact of Brexit on the automotive sector, there were calls for the Government to keep the closest possible relationship with the existing EU regulatory and trading framework to give UK volume car manufacturing a realistic chance of survival post-Brexit.

In a recently published report regarding the impact of Brexit on the automotive sector, the BEIS Committee says a no-deal puts hundreds of thousands of UK jobs at risk and threatens hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) estimated the introduction of trade barriers to result in a £4.5bn drop in exports while other studies pointed to a greater decline.

The report finds that non-tariff barriers, in the form of border delays and increased bureaucracy, will also impact on UK competitiveness. It recommends the Government to place a high premium in its Brexit negotiations on securing frictionless trade for the automotive sector.

The total turnover in the UK industry was £77.5bn in 2016, but with the UK automotive industry being export-led with Europe as the primary market.

The industry is also one of the most closely integrated sectors with the EU.
The UK automotive sector‘s success is built on the complex supply chains that stretch throughout Europe.

Many components are transferred through different countries before being assembled into the final product in the UK.

The report takes a hard look at potential opportunities arising from Brexit, but finds it unrealistic to expect an expansion of trade overseas to outweigh the loss of trade to Europe arising from a hard Brexit.

Also any new bilateral trade deals secured by the Government are unlikely to lead directly to a significant increase in investment and jobs in the UK automotive sector.

The committee found that retaining good access to the single market would be more important than securing the freedom to secure new trade deals with third countries.

On the key issue of the future regulatory regime, the report does not identify any potential benefits for divergence from the EU, only costs.

The report recommends the Government seeks in the negotiations to preserve existing arrangements for the certification of vehicles throughout the EU, either as part of a Mutual Recognition Agreement or some alternative arrangement.

To maximise trade opportunities with the EU – the UK’s biggest trading partner – and to provide certainty to global manufacturers, the Government should also aim to retain regulatory alignment with the EU regulatory framework for the medium term.

Our Automotive Sector industry employs over 800,000 people across the UK.

It’s all very well for this Government to divide UK industries into high, medium and low priority categories in the Brexit negotiations, with steel, oil and gas sectors marked as low.

We need to develop the UK’s infrastructure and industrial base for the future and make sure nobody is left behind.

Rodney SaddSpalding

Rodney is a local journalist and union delegate for the local Labour Party in South Holland & The Deepings

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/brexit-no-deal-will-risk-thousands-jobs-respected-spalding-lincolnshire-journalist-rodney-sadd-speaks/feed/0George Smid Latest Column on the Current State of Brexit: Nobody gets everything may end up with everybody getting nothinghttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/george-smid-latest-column-current-state-brexit-nobody-gets-everything-may-end-everybody-getting-nothing/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/george-smid-latest-column-current-state-brexit-nobody-gets-everything-may-end-everybody-getting-nothing/#respondTue, 06 Mar 2018 14:36:47 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=930Once upon a time there was a happily married couple. She liked summer sun and sea. He liked winter snow and ski. They overcame their differences and compromised – they spent their holidays together in autumn or spring. Despite the fact that both of them suffered by hay fever in the spring and both of […]

]]>Once upon a time there was a happily married couple. She liked summer sun and sea. He liked winter snow and ski. They overcame their differences and compromised – they spent their holidays together in autumn or spring. Despite the fact that both of them suffered by hay fever in the spring and both of them loathed autumn damp.

Which is what I was thinking when I listened to Theresa May’s speech last week. There was something for everyone and a firm promise to no-one. He might get a bit of snow in a late autumn. She might spend a few hours in spring sunbathing. But otherwise both of them will be pretty miserable either because of their running noses or because of the soggy fog getting under their skin.

The analogy of the conflict between summer sun and winter snow is clear. And here is the parallel to autumn and spring:

During the referendum campaign the Leavers were so obsessed with the concept of the EU as a superstate that they now see the EU as a state entity. It is not such a thing. There are 27 independent countries. Each single nation does have a say about the negotiation with the UK. They delegate the negotiations to Mr. Barnier’s team. They do not surrenderthe negotiations. To treat the EU like another state with which we might sign a free trade agreement is a complete and utter misunderstanding.

This is a misunderstanding which might destroy the dynamic of the negotiations. We must remember that each member states’ parliament has to approve the deal. For the UK to actually see itself as an equal partner to the remaining 27 nations is automatically perceived as the UK elevating itself above all and any of the remaining nations. Effectively proposing that one vote (of the UK) carries the same weight as 27 votes. That is bound to solicit a frosty response from the remaining 27 states.

The required time-scale was also overlooked. The argument that ‘we have a unique starting point, where … we both have the same laws and rules’ is flawed. The issue is how the ‘collective EU’ will balance one set of preferences against another. The Spaniards with their big fishing fleet will see things differently from the Dutch with their huge merchant fleet when talking about arrangements on the sea. The Dutch and Spanish governments will take time to agree on a common ‘EU approach’ – regardless of the ‘unique starting point’.

Perhaps to understand the speech, we need to notice only the specific announcements and the specific omissions. The announcement is that the Government intention is to leave the custom union and single market. Forget about close alignment in this, associate memberships in that and innovative solutions all around. You cannot be a partial virgin. You are either in or out.

What the PM did not mention was any of the inspirational statements of the past. ‘A free trading nation’ was missing, only a fleeting reference to Global Britain. There was no promise of a ‘proud, confident and prosperous UK’. Only that we might ‘emerge’ as ‘a stronger, more cohesive nation’. The control of the ‘money, laws and borders’ was reduced to the British Parliament passing the same EU laws which we will not be able to influence now. Bearing in mind the importance of the subject during the referendum, not once the word ‘immigration’ was mentioned.

The previous promises were not only absent from the speech they were contradicted: There was a thinly veiled warning we will be actually worse off. The Parliament will not follow EU laws only at our perils (‘If the Parliament [will] not achieve the same outcomes as EU law, it would be in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access.’ – Imagine the outcry if the same sentence came out of Michel Barnier’s mouth).

And, of course, the immigration will continue – ‘EU citizens will [come] here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise’. It must be stressed again and again that the EU does not provide for ‘free movement of people’ even now. Any EU national wishing to settle in the UK must prove within three months that he/she can shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. Otherwise they have to leave. It was Theresa May as the Home Secretary who did not enforce this principle.

Despite the absence of aspirational goals, the ‘Mansion Speech’ will become a watershed. For the first time the British public has Brexit options in front of them. We now have the Tories who will leave the custom union and single market. We have Labour who will campaign on staying in the custom union and ‘almost’ being in single market. And we have Liberal Democrats and Greens who wish to Remain in the EU.

The choice is ours. But to exercise that choice we must secure a referendum which would confirm or reject the deal. Brexit can be reversed: the UK can still remain in the EU. If Theresa May speech was good for anything it was to confirm just that: like the couple above we might get something which suits nobody. To avoid that, we must have a vote on it

Author: J George Smid

George was born in communist Czechoslovakia. In opposition to the Russian invasion (1968) he organised an occupational strike. When personal protest was no longer possible he left in 1981, gaining British Citizenship in 1987.

George’s entrance into politics was through local campaigning. He stood for election as a District Councillor, MEP and in the 2017 General Election for the LibDem Party. His political views reflect his experience. George is Chairman of the joint European Movement branches in the East Midlands.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the LibDem Party or the European Movement.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/george-smid-latest-column-current-state-brexit-nobody-gets-everything-may-end-everybody-getting-nothing/feed/0Unicorns Don’t Exist – Alan Meekings responds to John Hayes MPs latest Brexit diatribe on the EU in the Lincolnshire Free Presshttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/unicorns-dont-exist-alan-meekings-responds-john-hayes-mps-latest-brexit-diatribe-eu-lincolnshire-free-press/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/unicorns-dont-exist-alan-meekings-responds-john-hayes-mps-latest-brexit-diatribe-eu-lincolnshire-free-press/#respondThu, 01 Mar 2018 12:40:43 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=919It’s great when Brexiteers, like Mr R Garner (Letters, 27 February) and John Hayes MP (Hayes in The House, 27 February) rail against me for presenting uncomfortable facts and evidence about Brexit, as they simply give me further opportunities to point-out the fundamental flaws in their beliefs and assertions. This time around Mr R Garner […]

]]>It’s great when Brexiteers, like Mr R Garner (Letters, 27 February) and John Hayes MP (Hayes in The House, 27 February) rail against me for presenting uncomfortable facts and evidence about Brexit, as they simply give me further opportunities to point-out the fundamental flaws in their beliefs and assertions.

This time around Mr R Garner says, “Isn’t it time for Mr Meekings to down his angry pen and look to a brighter future?” Short answer: no. Why would I believe in the economic equivalent of unicorns, when there’s no evidence unicorns exist?

To be fair, John Hayes does quote at least one bit of evidence in his latest weekly column, namely “research from Economists for Free Trade.” Unfortunately, John Hayes must have missed my earlier letter in the Free Press on 20 February, in which I explained, in some detail, why this “research” is fundamentally flawed. So, I now challenge John Hayes to give me any credible evidence from leading economists this field who support the findings of the tiny band of “Economists for Free Trade” led by Professor Patrick Minford (the economist who told Margaret Thatcher the Poll Tax would be a huge financial success).

Even John Hayes’s own Conservative government’s Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU) recently produced a cross-departmental briefing paper showing that all Brexit strategies would make the UK worse off, both in the short and long term. Doubtless, John Hayes’s belief in unicorns is greater than mine.

Twenty months after the EU Referendum on 23 Jun 16 and eleven months after John Hayes’s government triggered Article 50 on 29 Mar 17, Theresa May’s Cabinet still don’t know what sort of Brexit they’re seeking or likely to get.

How do I know this to be true? Because John Hayes and 61 other Conservative MPs have recently sent Theresa May a letter, described by most commentators as a “ransom note”, setting out the six ‘red lines’ of the hard-right Conservative European Research Group, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Please search for this letter online, and weep at what it says.

Let’s be clear, we can either have Brexit, which will cripple our economy, or we can get back to having the fastest-growing G7 economy, which we had back in 2016 and which will allow us to build a fairer, more just, more equitable society in the UK, backed by the financial capability to address pressing social issues locally, like access to affordable housing, healthcare, social care, properly funded School places, adequate funding for the Police to address crime, antisocial behaviour, illegal gangmasters and modern slavery, etc.

In an edition of the Free Press (27 February, Page 10), in which the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire describes making a “New attempt by county’s force to avoid ‘cliff edge'”, I wonder how John Hayes is happy to waste his whole ‘Hayes in The House’ column to advocate Brexit, rather than addressing the very real issues people locally are experiencing on a day-to-day basis.

Moreover, John Hayes concludes his latest weekly column by saying “Now, to finally thwart the snarling and whining of the Brexit deniers and unrepentant Europhiles [presumably including me], the people must triumph again.” So, let’s bring it on, John. Let’s have a referendum on the terms of Brexit negotiated by your Conservative government. This is exactly what democracy demands.

Author: Alan Meekings

Alan Meekings is a management consultant specialising in the field of Organisational Performance Management. He has led programmes of major change and sustainable improvement with public, private and third sector organisations for over thirty years. He is a Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University School of Management, a Visiting Scholar at Heriot-Watt University School of Management and a member of the European Movement nationally and in Lincolnshire.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe or the European Movement.

Editors View:

Alan is far from a lone voice in Lincolnshire in general and South Holland and the Deepings in particular, but rather one of those representing the voices of many. In just over 12 months the European Movement has grown from having no branches in the East Midlands to now having six. The largest of these is the Lincolnshire Branch, which after one year had 350 active supporters and is continuing to flourish with major events taking place over the next few months and throughout the summer.

John Hayes MP seemingly is unable to help himself when it comes to the use of unprofessional, inflammatory and quite frankly offensive language when referring to the EU. This is not ‘mainstream’ but rather the product of having such an insular and cut off view in the long term safest seat in the country. Well he will not go unchallenged any longer, with the growing swell of opposition to his hard line views and membership of the rather sinister ERG. And now that the Conservative Group for Europe have a representative in his own local Moulton Conservative Association Branch, things are changing for ever.

Dr Nicholas P George

Dr George is a National and Local (South Holland and the Deepings) member and Patron of the Conservative Party as well as a Party Donor through his Companies. He is also a member of the Conservative Group for Europe, National Member of the European Movement and the European Movements local Campaign Manager for Lincolnshire. Chair of the Free World Organisation

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe or the European Movement.

]]>As Christina Lamb, chief foreign correspondent of The Times, said on Desert Island Discs this week, “Facts are facts. You can’t have alternative facts.” In this context, let’s explore Paul Foyster’s assertions in his latest letter (Spalding Guardian Reader’s View).

Paul Foyster UKIP Leader South Holland and the Deepings

First, Paul said earlier (January 4), “For many years every single time the UK has objected to new EU rules and laws, we have been outvoted and overruled.” This assertion remains completely untrue. However, Paul now suggests this assertion can somehow be ignored because he “missed out” the word “significant” before “new laws”. Well, no, it can’t. His statement (even with the word “significant” included) still remains completely untrue.

Then, he suggests I should take a look at an article by Professor Simon Hix (with which I’m fully familiar). However, Paul neglects to mention this article (which concerns decision-making in the Council of Ministers), fundamentally undermines even his own assertion.

Moreover, he fails to mention a far more relevant article by Professor Hix (at ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/is-the-uk-marginalised-in-the-eu-2/), which examines EU decision-making more widely. This article demonstrates that, across ALL policy issues, the UK has been the fourth closest of 28 nations to the policy outcomes we were seeking. Moreover, on “highly salient issues” (i.e. the issues we most cared about), we were the second closest of 28 nations to the policy outcomes we were seeking. Will UKIP please now stop saying “every single time the UK has objected to new EU rules and laws, we have been outvoted and overruled.” It’s simply not true. Not true. Not true.

Rather than continuing to argue with Paul about facts he consistently denies, I suspect the time has come to start acknowledging the benefits of EU membership.

Let me quote just one recent example. Earlier this week, Theresa May made a much-trumpeted statement saying the UK will be abolishing charges for credit card use. Jolly good. But did she mention this step forward was merely putting into effect an EU-wide agreement? Absolutely not. Instead, she hogged the credit and didn’t even mention that she was merely implementing an EU-wide agreement that the UK helped to create.

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that, for over 40 years, UK politicians and our anti-EU press have unjustifiably blamed all our domestic problems on the EU, while taking credit for every benefit of EU membership.

So, as Nigel Farage has recently suggested, the time has come to give voters a ‘final say’ on the terms of Brexit negotiated with the EU. I recognise many voters locally will still wish to leave the EU at any price. However, many won’t, notably young people whose lives are most adversely affected. I just wish this ‘final say’ will be based on facts and evidence, not beliefs and assertions.

Author: Alan Meekings

Alan Meekings is a management consultant specialising in the field of Organisational Performance Management. He has led programmes of major change and sustainable improvement with public, private and third sector organisations for over thirty years. He is a Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University School of Management, a Visiting Scholar at Heriot-Watt University School of Management and a member of the European Movement nationally and in Lincolnshire.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe or the European Movement.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/facts-facts-response-paul-foyster-ukip-south-holland-deepings/feed/0When Truth and Politics part company – “A venomous and ranting letter form Chair of UKIP rebuffed’http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/truth-politics-part-company-venomous-ranting-letter-form-chair-ukip-rebuffed/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/truth-politics-part-company-venomous-ranting-letter-form-chair-ukip-rebuffed/#respondMon, 08 Jan 2018 15:09:20 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=909Can we have some facts from UKIP? Councillor Paul Cayton Foyster, Chairman, UKIP South Holland & the Deepings (Reader’s View, January 4, 2018) says, “For many years every single time the UK has objected to new EU rules and laws, we have been outvoted and overruled.” Untrue. Would anyone locally like to know the facts, […]

Councillor Paul Cayton Foyster, Chairman, UKIP South Holland & the Deepings (Reader’s View, January 4, 2018) says, “For many years every single time the UK has objected to new EU rules and laws, we have been outvoted and overruled.” Untrue.

Would anyone locally like to know the facts, rather than the assertions made UKIP and our anti-EU daily press (owned by a few, tax-avoiding, hyper-rich individuals, who can sue me for libel if they wish)?

Official voting records show the British government, since 1999, voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on only 56 occasions, ‘Abstained’ 70 times and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times.

In other words, the UK has been on the “winning side” 95% of the time, has abstained 3% of the time and been on the “losing side” only 2% of time since 1999 – not “every single time”, as Paul Foyster alleges.

Unfortunately, Brexiteers, like Paul Foyster, have come to hate the EU at such a visceral, emotional level they’re never likely to be persuaded by facts or evidence showing that all their allegations about the EU are (shock, horror) untrue and remaining in the EU would be in the very best interests of the UK.

Alan Meekings is a management consultant specialising in the field of Organisational Performance Management. He has led programmes of major change and sustainable improvement with public, private and third sector organisations for over thirty years. He is a Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University School of Management, a Visiting Scholar at Heriot-Watt University School of Management and a member of the European Movement nationally and in Lincolnshire.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe or the European Movement.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/truth-politics-part-company-venomous-ranting-letter-form-chair-ukip-rebuffed/feed/0George Smid: No deal Brexit must mean staying in the EUhttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/george-smid-no-deal-brexit-must-mean-staying-eu/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/george-smid-no-deal-brexit-must-mean-staying-eu/#respondThu, 23 Nov 2017 14:07:05 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=902Deal or No Deal – in the game show you either accept the offer or stay in the game. If you wish to sell a house you either do a deal or you stay in your house – no deal. In every situation if you don’t do the deal you stay put. Brexit claims to be […]

]]>Deal or No Deal – in the game show you either accept the offer or stay in the game. If you wish to sell a house you either do a deal or you stay in your house – no deal. In every situation if you don’t do the deal you stay put.

Brexit claims to be different. ‘No deal’ means that we give away the house and hope it will never rain. Worse, with no deal we still might pay – by ‘walking away’ Britain could face international challenge for payments of already accepted financial commitments.

Why should the Brexit end game be different from selling the house? Like ‘Brexit means Brexit’, ‘no deal Brexit’ has no definition of what it means. It is just the latest in a long line of catchphrases which somehow keep Brexit alive. Despite the obvious reality check.

The reality is dire: At the time of writing this column the Cabinet agreed to pay the ‘divorce bill’ of 40 billion Euros to secure a trade deal, the Chancellor is making provisions for huge Brexit cost, the EU has moved the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority from London to Amsterdam and Paris and David Davis will be dropped into Brussels by RAF plane.

His urgency is well placed: on December 6, EU ambassadors will conclude if the UK has made sufficient progress on Northern Ireland, on EU and UK citizens residing in other countries and if the UK is prepared to accept past financial commitments.

If there is no progress, business will assume the worst and will act accordingly.

Business needs to know what is on offer but we are kept in the dark: the government is refusing even to publish its own papers on the impact of Brexit. The claim that publishing would weaken UK negotiations only proves that the impact must be very bad indeed. (If the impact was positive the UK negotiation position would have been stronger not weaker.)

The faith in the success of trade negotiations is also misplaced. The faith seems to be based on the assumptions that ‘they’ need us more than we need them because the UK shows a trade deficit with the EU.

By that logic the US negotiating position with China would be one of the strength. It’s exactly the opposite – the recent Trump’s visit to Asia highlighted how weak the US position is.

The dynamic of EU trade is heavily stacked against the UK: 54% of UK exports (by value) are delivered to other European trade partners; 21% goes to Asia and 17% to North America. From the top 10 UK trading partners only America ($60.4 billion) and China (US $18 billion) are not from Europe. The rest are European nations (US $182 billion – 2016 figures). We are three times as dependent on EU trade than we are on the US trade.

For imports of goods the situation is similar: only Ireland has the UK as number one import partner (32%). Only for Cyprus and Malta is the UK among the top three (2ndplace for Cyprus, 3rd place for Malta).

The interdependence of the EU countries plays much bigger role in their trade. France’s trade with Germany is twice of the UK. For France, the UK is behind the US and Italy.

The dynamic of the trade negotiations will reflect that and is therefore heavily against the UK. ‘The future’ Brexit success in trade negotiations might end up the same way as the previous pledges of a promised land – as nothing. The EU will not compromise its single market.

That is not a political decision. It’s money driven. For Poland, the UK is the second biggest trading partner after Germany. Even with that we cannot rely on Polish support. Poland’s trade with Germany is 27% of all of her exports ($53 billion). UK is second, but only with $13 billion (6.6%). Four times as little. If you had to choose which one would you want to keep? $53 billion or $13 billion?

The most improbable ‘future trade promise’ is the claim that we will replace the EU trade by trading with the rest of the world. James Dyson argues for Brexit for that reason. But his company provides a powerful evidence that we do not need to leave the EU to do that: Dyson’s latest profit increase of 41% is mainly in Asia.

Dyson, a Brexiteer, provides the proof that if we were able to offer something extra to the ‘rest of the world’ we would have been already doing it – the EU is not hindering us.

No deal staying is indeed better than a bad deal. To decide which deal is better we need to evaluate the options. I have long argued for a cost-benefit analysis of a future UK position with various scenarios developed for various cases.

We now know that we will pay to leave. When David Davis parachutes into Brussels from his RAF plane he should ask Monsieur Barnier: what will I get if I pay nothing, £20 billion, £40 billion, … ? He can then present the options to Parliament and let MPs decide.

Leaving the EU will cost us. Far from the initial promises that we will be better off outside. No deal, staying in the EU, might be the cheapest option. We need to know.

Be involved! – we have only a few months to decide what’s best for us.

Author: J George Smid

George was born in communist Czechoslovakia. In opposition to the Russian invasion (1968) he organised an occupational strike. When personal protest was no longer possible he left in 1981, gaining British Citizenship in 1987.

George’s entrance into politics was through local campaigning. He stood for election as a District Councillor, MEP and in the 2017 General Election for the LibDem Party. His political views reflect his experience. George is Chairman of the joint European Movement branches in the East Midlands.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the LibDem Party or the European Movement.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/george-smid-no-deal-brexit-must-mean-staying-eu/feed/0An appeal to all people of good will: join us in stopping the “barmy” amendmenthttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/appeal-people-good-will-join-us-stopping-barmy-amendment/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/appeal-people-good-will-join-us-stopping-barmy-amendment/#respondMon, 20 Nov 2017 19:59:13 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=893We are making real progress with the campaign against what our Chairman termed “the barmy amendment” to write “29 March 2019 at 11.00PM” on the face of the EU Withdrawal Bill. Dominic and other MPs have made very clear their opposition. The proposed amendment would put Britain in to a straitjacket that increases the risk […]

]]>We are making real progress with the campaign against what our Chairman termed “the barmy amendment” to write “29 March 2019 at 11.00PM” on the face of the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Dominic and other MPs have made very clear their opposition. The proposed amendment would put Britain in to a straitjacket that increases the risk of a ‘no deal’ Brexit or of chaos because there isn’t time to sort out the details of future arrangements.

But the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have attacked our MP members and other MPs standing up against what Anthony Hilton has described as a hare-brained scheme. As a seeming result of a vicious press campaign some MPs – including Anna Soubry – are getting hate tweets containing threats that their offices have had to report to the police.

Each of us must do all we can to show our MPs that we back them – and to show every MP that there is real disquiet in the country at the fixed date amendment.

We know some of you have already started to email MPs and encourage others to do the same. Some of you have been surprised when MPs who have kept quiet on Brexit have come back very quickly and said this amendment causes them concern.

If you have not already emailed your MP (or others who are well known to you) please do so at once. It does not matter if your MP is a Brexiteer or even if your MP is not a Conservative – the objective is to get MPs to see that Dominic, our Deputy Chair Antoinette Sandbach and the Chair of our Parliamentary Group, Stephen Hammond and our other MPs have support in the country.

Please encourage others to join in the campaign.

In particular if you have business contacts get onto them and give them the material we are attaching to this email – a copy of the briefing note and a pdf appeal to join our campaign which includes practical guidance on how to make an impact on an MP.

You will see that we are appealing to all “of good will” – not just Conservatives. This should be a national campaign, not a partisan campaign, and please emphasise to those belonging to other or no party that this is something everyone can join in.

We are not getting abusive tweets. We are not having to ask the police for protection simply for doing our jobs. These are the risks our MPs are now running.

The least we can do is support courageous MPs like Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Tom Tugendhat by making sure that all MPs know that they are speaking up for many, many people who believe that the idea of writing “11.00PM on 29 March 2019” on the face of the EU Withdrawal Bill is a very dangerous step.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/appeal-people-good-will-join-us-stopping-barmy-amendment/feed/0Taking a Terrible Gamble – Urgent Message from the Conservative Group for Europehttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/taking-terrible-gamble-urgent-message-conservative-group-europe/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/taking-terrible-gamble-urgent-message-conservative-group-europe/#respondTue, 14 Nov 2017 11:01:51 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=883On Friday, we were all told that the House of Commons will be asked to amend the EU Withdrawal Bill to write an Exit Date – 29 March 2019 – on the face of the Bill. Both our Chair, the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, and our deputy chair, Antoinette Sandbach MP, are opposed […]

]]>On Friday, we were all told that the House of Commons will be asked to amend the EU Withdrawal Bill to write an Exit Date – 29 March 2019 – on the face of the Bill.

Both our Chair, the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, and our deputy chair, Antoinette Sandbach MP, are opposed to this. The proposal is fundamentally flawed. We appeal to all members of the CGE to give all the support they can to our chair and deputy chair.

We appeal to you to contact any MP you know – and your own MP – to tell them that that you believe that the idea of writing a fixed Exit Date on the face EU Withdrawal Bill is completely wrong and ask them to oppose it. Even if the MP is known to be a Brexiteer contact him or her – it matters a great deal that ALL MPs should know that there is strong opposition to this proposal. This applies to MPs of ALL parties.

Almost all MPs have email addresses that you can find by going to www.Parliament.uk and putting your postcode or constituency or the MP’s name into the search engine.

If you are writing to your own MP, remember to give your address. Put “URGENT” in the subject line – and try to follow up with a phone call to the MP’s office and ask the staff member who answers to make sure that the MP sees your message BEFORE tomorrow’s debate

If you are writing to a friend/contact put “FROM AN OLD FIREND” or “WE MET AT>>>” in the subject line – this means your email should be passed on even though you are not a constituent

We are publishing today a briefing note by Joe Egerton entitled FIXING THE EXIT DATE – A TERRIBLE GAMBLE

A pdf is attached. You can use this to reinforce our message by emailing it to your MP and other MPs you know.

You will find possible covering words for an email below.

It is really important that we all act today to support MPs who are trying to stop an amendment that could be a disastrous mistake for our country. The amendment may be voted on tomorrow (Tuesday) so don’t delay

AND PLEASE CONTACT ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES AND ASK THEM TO EMAIL MPS AS WELL

*Dr George is a National and Local member and Patron of the Conservative Party as well as a Party Donor through his Companies. He is also a member of the Conservative Group for Europe, National Member of the European Movement and the European Movements local Campaign Manager for Lincolnshire.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and on this occasion reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe and probably the European Movement.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/taking-terrible-gamble-urgent-message-conservative-group-europe/feed/0Prime Ministers Message to EU Citizens living in the UKhttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/prime-ministers-message-eu-citizens-living-uk/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/prime-ministers-message-eu-citizens-living-uk/#respondThu, 19 Oct 2017 10:40:02 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=875Dear As I travel to Brussels today, I know that many people will be looking to us – the leaders of the 28 nations in the European Union – to demonstrate we are putting people first. I have been clear throughout this process that citizens’ rights are my first priority. And I know my fellow […]

]]>Dear
As I travel to Brussels today, I know that many people will be looking to us – the leaders of the 28 nations in the European Union – to demonstrate we are putting people first.

I have been clear throughout this process that citizens’ rights are my first priority. And I know my fellow leaders have the same objective: to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU.

I want to give reassurance that this issue remains a priority, that we are united on the key principles, and that the focus over the weeks to come will be delivering an agreement that works for people here in the UK, and people in the EU.

When we started this process, some accused us of treating EU nationals as bargaining chips. Nothing could have been further from the truth. EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK have made a huge contribution to our country. And we want them and their families to stay. I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay.

But this agreement will not only provide certainty about residence, but also healthcare, pensions and other benefits. It will mean that EU citizens who have paid into the UK system – and UK nationals into the system of an EU27 country – can benefit from what they’ve put in. It will enable families who have built their lives together in the EU and UK to stay together. And it will provide guarantees that the rights of those UK nationals currently living in the EU, and EU citizens currently living in the UK will not diverge over time.

What that leaves us with is a small number of important points to finalise. That is to be expected at this point in negotiations. We are in touching distance of agreement. I know both sides will consider each other’s proposals for finalising the agreement with an open mind. And with flexibility and creativity on both sides, I am confident that we can conclude discussions on citizens’ rights in the coming weeks.

I know there is real anxiety about how the agreement will be implemented. People are concerned that the process will be complicated and bureaucratic, and will put up hurdles that are difficult to overcome. I want to provide reassurance here too.

We are developing a streamlined digital process for those applying for settled status in the UK in the future. This process will be designed with users in mind, and we will engage with them every step of the way. We will keep the cost as low as possible – no more than the cost of a UK passport. The criteria applied will be simple, transparent and strictly in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement. People applying will not have to account for every trip they have taken in and out of the UK and will no longer have to demonstrate Comprehensive Sickness Insurance as they currently have to under EU rules. And importantly, for any EU citizen who holds Permanent Residence under the old scheme, there will be a simple process put in place to swap their current status for UK settled status.

To keep development of the system on track, the Government is also setting up a User Group that will include representatives of EU citizens in the UK, and digital, technical and legal experts. This group will meet regularly, ensuring the process is transparent and responds properly to users’ needs. And we recognise that British nationals living in the EU27 will be similarly concerned about potential changes to processes after the UK leaves the EU. We have repeatedly flagged these issues during the negotiations. And we are keen to work closely with EU Member States to ensure their processes are equally streamlined.

We want people to stay and we want families to stay together. We hugely value the contributions that EU nationals make to the economic, social and cultural fabric of the UK. And I know that Member States value equally UK nationals living in their communities. I hope that these reassurances, alongside those made by both the UK and the European Commission last week, will provide further helpful certainty to the four million people who were understandably anxious about what Brexit would mean for their futures.

]]>http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/prime-ministers-message-eu-citizens-living-uk/feed/0If leaving the EU was hard.. getting in was harder by Edward Bickhamhttp://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/if-leaving-the-eu-was-hard-getting-in-was-harder-by-edward-bickham/
http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/if-leaving-the-eu-was-hard-getting-in-was-harder-by-edward-bickham/#respondWed, 18 Oct 2017 09:01:10 +0000http://www.thefreeworld.org.uk/?p=871Britain’s entry into Europe was a long, painful process – with clear lessons for our even more painful departure, says EDWARD BICKHAM, curator of a new exhibition on this pivotal period in British history During the late 1940s, Winston Churchill had been the darling of many European political salons as a result of making trenchant […]

]]>Britain’s entry into Europe was a long, painful process – with clear lessons for our even more painful departure, says EDWARD BICKHAM, curator of a new exhibition on this pivotal period in British history

During the late 1940s, Winston Churchill had been the darling of many European political salons as a result of making trenchant speeches advocating a new form of European unity. At the start he presented Britain, along with the United States, as a sponsor and facilitator rather than a direct participant, but by the end of the decade he clearly envisaged British involvement in the new structures.

In 1950, plans were tabled for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. The then Labour Government were not keen to see sovereignty shared over two industries which they had recently nationalised in order to increase political control over them. But more fundamentally, although British detachment was attacked by the Conservatives, neither Westminster nor Whitehall could get their heads around the supranational element of the new institution nor saw a need for Britain to get involved. Indeed, when Churchill and Eden came back in to Government in 1951, despite their criticisms in Opposition, policy effectively remained unchanged. Britain’s prestige was still high at the time and there were missed opportunities for Britain to take a leading role in shaping a new European model, designed to prevent a return to conflict.

By 1955, and in an effort to relaunch moves towards integration following the failure (for which Britain was partly responsible) of the proposed European Defence Community, the Messina Conference was convened. It, and its offspring the Spaak Committee, were intended to lead to the creation of a common market. Britain was invited to attend but we did no more than send an Under-Secretary from the Board of Trade to a ministerial conference.

The consensus in Whitehall was that the proposals would almost certainly fail and that the supra-national element was not acceptable to Britain. Involvement was seen as incompatible with our Commonwealth obligations and the argument was made that, as a global player, Britain could not be constrained by such European entanglements. Anthony Eden and his chancellor, R A Butler, were described as “bored” by the topic and the familiar phrase about the dangers of “finding ourselves shackled to a corpse” even made an appearance. The final advice to ministers suggested that it would be in British interests for the common market to collapse.

The first obvious lesson for policy today is how our sense of British exceptionalism led to a poor understanding of our real strategic position and interests. The second point to note is the recurrent British expectation that continental plans of which we disapprove are bound to fail, and how often this has been proved wrong. This was once again in evidence after the 2016 referendum when many British pundits expected Brexit to be followed by Dexit and Frexit. Instead, the prospect of Brexit seems to have increased continental solidarity. When it comes to Europe we have a habit of underestimating our partners and of over-estimating the strength of our own position.

In withdrawing from participation in the Spaak Committee, our senior official, Russell Bretherton, is said to have left with a Whitehall-crafted message (which reputedly he didn’t believe) that “you are trying to negotiate something that you will never be able to negotiate. But if negotiated it will not be ratified. And if ratified, it will not work”. Too late, Britain launched her own initiative for the creation of a free trade area rather than a customs union and without the supranational elements. It failed but was seen as an attempt to sabotage the formation of the European Economic Community and created suspicion of British motives. In 1957 the Six – France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries – went ahead with the Treaty of Rome.

Lesson three – particularly pertinent as we look to negotiate a post-Brexit trade relationship with the European Union – is that for the rest of Europe, trade is generally viewed positively, but for most of our partners it is the wider political relationship and interdependence that matter. Thus, they will not concede the same benefits that we currently enjoy without our shouldering a commensurate share of political commitments.

Lesson four, relates to the realities of power, influence and sovereignty. By opting out of participation in the EEC we relinquished our ability to influence events on our very doorstep. So, we avoided supranational entanglements and kept our ‘sovereignty’ pristine but at the price of surrendering our ability to shape the direction of European co-operation. In the years that followed the EEC agreed agricultural and budgetary policies which were not designed with British interests in mind and we left ourselves at the mercy of French vetoes.

Britain went ahead with EFTA, the European Free Trade Association, with six other, largely economically second division, countries – leaving Europe as the wags of the time described it as ‘at Sixes and Sevens’. By the time EFTA started to operate, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had already commissioned work on whether Britain should seek to join the EEC. He was influenced by fears about widening divisions within Western Europe, the shock to British prestige administered by the Suez debacle, by the quickening pace at which the Empire was being dismantled and by the poor performance of the British economy relative to the Six.

In a message to his Foreign Secretary at the end of 1959, Macmillan noted that “for the first time since the Napoleonic era, the major continental powers are united in a positive economic grouping, with considerable political aspects, which although not directed against the United Kingdom may have the effect of excluding us both from European markets and from consultation on European policy”. In 1961, Macmillan took the plunge and applied for membership – or as he presented it at home, sought to explore the terms that might be available if we applied.

Under the energetic leadership of Lord Privy Seal, Edward Heath, the British negotiating team made slow but substantive progress over the next 18 months. Britain hoped that the context would be of seven countries seeking to solve problems together. Instead, progress was slowed by the determination of the Six to align their positions before sharing them with the Brits. Thus lesson five is that in putting ourselves outside the club, we inevitably reduce our ability to use good bilateral relations to improve negotiating outcomes. Ultimately the importance to the Six – for which today read 27 – of their relations with each other outweighs the significance of their relationship with the UK.

Meanwhile back at home, although Macmillan’s private observations made clear that he saw EEC membership in strategic terms as being about British power, the public presentation was low-key and transactional. It was argued that to show enthusiasm would undermine Britain’s negotiating position – and enrage the Tory right. It also raised questions in other European capitals about how genuine Britain’s conversion to European integration was. The political climate had also deteriorated including by Labour leader, Hugh Gaitskell’s, shift in 1962 to oppose membership and to portray it as meaning the “end of one thousand years of history”.

Under the leadership of De Gaulle, France’s position had throughout been slippery. Until quite late in the day Heath believed that the talks would succeed. In December 1962, the Bermuda Agreement enabled Britain to access US Polaris technology for our next generation of nuclear deterrent. This enraged De Gaulle and the following month he vetoed British membership. He didn’t bother to consult the other five before doing so. He argued that Britain’s economic problems and lack of European vocation would undermine the stability of the Community. He saw Britain as a Trojan horse for US interests.

The other five regretted De Gaulle’s actions but there was some sympathy for the proposition that Britain might be seeking to join in order to sabotage the Community. Our behaviour in the 1950s still rankled. Which brings us to lesson six – namely that we need to factor in scepticism about Britain’s sincerity as we approach the 2019 parting of the ways. Michael Gove’s ill-considered declaration during the referendum campaign that he sought the “democratic liberation” of Europe from the EU still rings in the ears of many Continental politicians. Once Britain has negotiated future arrangements what confidence can our partners have that we will not seek to weaken the EU as a more powerful European actor whose interests we may see as inimical to our own because we will enjoy so little leverage over them?

Lesson seven is well known – that Europe can destroy British political careers. Harold Macmillan’s lengthy and distinguished career was the first to bite the dust. There was no Plan B and De Gaulle’s veto broke the back of his government. Under his successor, Alec Douglas-Home, the Conservatives lost power in 1964.

By the time of the 1966 General Election, the previously implacably anti-European Harold Wilson was already planning a volte face on EEC membership. Egged on by George Brown he duly lodged an application in 1967 declaring that Britain “wouldn’t take no for an answer”. Within months, however, he was met by a second French veto, with Sterling’s 1967 devaluation used as evidence of how the instability of the British economy could damage the Community. By this point, the French had managed to entrench a protectionist Common Agricultural Policy which would further complicate Britain’s life if we ever succeeded in securing membership.

In 1969 De Gaulle lost a referendum and retired to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises. At the end of that year his successor Georges Pompidou agreed, in principle, to the idea of enlargement but whether this would extend to accepting British membership was still in doubt. When Edward Heath entered 10 Downing Street in June 1970 he found that negotiations on entry were scheduled to begin within a fortnight. British strategy up to this point had been to try and use pressure from the other five member states to wear down the French. Heath recognised that Britain needed to persuade the French directly of our European vocation which he did with Pompidou in May 1971. As Heath’s Political Secretary, Douglas Hurd subsequently wrote: “Pompidou was a serious man. He needed to be convinced not flattered. He had to believe that Britain was coming in to Europe not out of despair, not to make trouble, but to be a determined and capable partner.” Having convinced the French the Five came rapidly into line. Even then, however, we almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Labour shifted back to opposing membership on “Tory terms”, even though those who would have run the negotiations if Labour had been returned confirmed that they were as good as, or better, than those for which they had been aiming. Fortunately, the House of Commons approved the terms by a majority of 112 but only because the Conservatives offered their MPs a free vote and the Liberals and 69 Labour MPs followed Roy Jenkins in voting with the Government.

Ultimately, Labour divisions had to be managed through a ‘renegotiation’ before a decisive two to one majority in favour of membership was achieved in the 1975 Referendum. But at least that victory was won through cross-Party co-operation – which leads us to lesson eight. Britain’s relationship with our European neighbours is fundamental to our national interest.

It is too important to be a pawn in our obsessive party struggles. Especially given current Parliamentary arithmetic, there needs to be a greater consensus behind creating a new model for Britain’s relations with the EU – one which does not consign Britain to frustrated impotence at the margins of our Continent.

Edward Bickham is Vice Chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe and was Special Adviser to the Foreign Secretary during the Maastricht Treaty negotiations.

“Britain’s long road into Europe” runs at Arundells, 59 Cathedral Close, Salisbury through to November 1st. Saturdays to Wednesdays 11 am – 4.30pm.

1948

The European Union of Federalists organises a Congress at The Hague in 1948 in the hope of drawing up a European constitution. The UK rejects the federal approach and the result is the Council of Europe, a loose grouping that becomes a guardian of Europe’s human rights

1951

The Treaty of Paris, signed by six countries (France, Germany the Benelux states and Italy) establishes European Coal and Steel Community ECSC

1957

The six members sign the Treaty of Rome, a significant step towards the common market, setting up the European Economic Community

1960

EFTA is launched, as an alternative to the EEC, by Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Like the EEC, EFTA aims to establish free trade but opposes uniform external tariffs and supranational institutions

1961

Harold Macmillan’s government applies to join the EEC

1963

French President Charles de Gaulle vetoes British membership saying that UK lacks commitment to European integration

1967

de Gaulle again says he will block a British application to join the common market

1973

Britain is allowed into European Economic Community, but within a year calls for major changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, “fairer methods of financing the budget” and solutions to monetary problems

1975

Referendum over EEC membership splits Harold Wilson’s Labour government, but two thirds of voters opt to stay in

1979

The road to the euro begins with the European Monetary System, introducing the European currency unit (Ecu) and the exchange rate mechanism (ERM)

1984

UK wins a “rebate” from Brussels, after Margaret Thatcher threatens to halt payments. “We are simply asking to have our own money back,” she says

1986

The European flag is unveiled

1992

UK forced out of Exchange Rate Mechanism, which is intended to harmonise European countries’ financial systems before creation of single currency. Crisis creates arguments over whether Britain should consider future attempt at monetary union

1993

John Major faces down back-bench rebellion over Maastricht Treaty, which introduces co-operation on foreign policy and security. He had signed the treaty a year previously, after opting out of single currency and “social chapter” on workers’ rights

2004

Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac clash during negotiations for European constitution, with France concerned that concessions create “two-speed Europe”. Plans later collapse after France and the Netherlands vote against them in referendums

2007

Gordon Brown misses televised ceremony of leaders signing Lisbon Treaty, which hands greater powers to Brussels. The controversial treaty took two years to negotiate, after plans for an official constitution were abandoned

2011

David Cameron clashes with Europe over plans to introduce a levy on banks and restrict London’s financial sector, and promises to bring back powers from Brussels

2013

Cameron promises that if the Conservatives win the next election they would seek to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and then hold a referendum on membership

2016

The UK votes to leave the EU in a referendum held a year after the Tory election victory

by Edward Bickham

Edward Bickham is a consultant working primarily around license to operate issues in the international oil, gas and mining industries. He is a Senior Adviser to Critical Resource Ltd, and a Strategic Adviser to the International Council on Mining and Metals. From 2000 to 2009 he was Executive Vice President, External Relations for international mining group, Anglo American plc. He was Chairman of the CBI International Investment Panel (2007-9) and served at Board level of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (2006-13). In 2014 he became Chairman of the Institute of Business Ethics.

His political involvement includes period as Special Adviser to the Foreign Secretary (1990-93) a period that included the negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty; to the Home Secretary (1985-88) and to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1983-85). He was European Desk Officer at the Conservative Research Department (1980-83). He received the Robert Schuman Silver medal for services to European unity in 1983.

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Conservative Group for Europe or the European Movement.